Twenty-three municipalities from across Quebec were in Superior Court in Montreal on Monday asking a judge to suspend parts of Quebec’s new language law, Bill 96, while they proceed with a legal challenge against it.
The legal challenge will likely take years to work its way through the courts.
Julius Grey, the lawyer for the municipalities, argued before Superior Court Justice Silvana Conte that requiring municipalities to continue enforcing certain parts of the law while the legal challenge continues would cause irreparable harm.
“Clearly there is prejudice. It’s not life and death, but there is serious prejudice,” Grey told reporters during a break in the hearing.
Grey asked the judge to suspend four provisions of Bill 96 for the 23 bilingual municipalities pending the outcome of their legal challenge, including:
-
The provision that requires all municipal contracts to be drafted in French, even when all parties are anglophones.
-
The provision that allows the province to withhold grants and subsidies to municipalities that fail to comply with Bill 96.
-
The provision that allows inspectors from the Office Québécois de la langue française (OQLF) to conduct searches and seizures of documents without a warrant and without notice.
-
The provision requiring municipalities to discipline employees who don’t comply with Bill 96.
Grey said the municipalities shouldn’t have to comply with these provisions while waiting for the case to be decided on its merits.
“The vast power of search and seizure, the subsidies that are given out and the duty to discipline are all things which should await a final decision on what the rules are,” Grey said.
Province says arguments based on fear
Charles Gravel, lawyer for the attorney-general of Quebec, argued that the municipalities failed to present any evidence that the law had done irreparable damage.
Gravel noted they gave no specific examples of invasive searches, subsidies being withheld or employees being disciplined unfairly since Bill 96 came into force.
“Prejudice has to be sufficiently established,” Gravel told the judge. “Fear alone is not enough.”
Gravel also argued that municipal governance is solely a provincial jurisdiction and that the province was well within its rights to set rules and establish guidelines around use of language.
He told Conte municipalities weren’t created in a linguistic context and don’t have constitutional status that guarantees minority language rights.
He said none of the issues raised by the municipalities were serious enough to justify suspending the law.
Grey argued that waiting to apply the law until the court challenge was settled would have no significant effect on the long-term application of the law and it was therefore justified.
The judge said she hoped to deliver a decision quickly, but noted that she would take some time to consider the arguments.
Municipalities challenging Bill 96:
-
Baie d’Urfé.
-
Beaconsfield.
-
Blanc-Sablon.
-
Bonne-Espérance.
-
Chichester.
-
Côte Saint-Luc.
-
Dollard-des-Ormeaux.
-
Dorval.
-
Havelock.
-
Hope Town.
-
Kazabazua.
-
Kirkland.
-
L’Isle-aux-Allumettes.
-
Montréal-Ouest.
-
Mulgrave-et-Derry.
-
New Carlisle.
-
Pointe-Claire.
-
Senneville.
-
Sheenboro.
-
Shigawake.
-
Stanbridge East.
-
Wentworth.
-
Westmount.